I'm a 5-Star Bandit :D

If you knew he had you on ignore, why would you come in and troll up his thread? This is the exact sort of thing we're talking about. It's thriving on hate and negativity, in a social, community game. If you can't bother to be nice and supportive of peers in a video game, I don't know what to say. It's such a simple thing to be helpful and constructive, and yes, selfishly kind for no real reason at times in this game, because it really doesn't cost you anything except a few moments of time.

This game is no different than playing Mario Bros., or heck, even checkers, the only difference is you're interacting with hundreds of strangers and friends. The mindset that it's somehow serious business boggles my own mind. If I wanted to watch supposedly grown adults rant and wail angrily about a game, I'd go watch little league games.

Because the thread is more than one person. This is a public thread about public reactions to public work. It's not 'his' thread. It's a thread he started.

I disagree with the principle of the thread. I disagree with CaptainMan. I disagree with you. That isn't 'hate and negativity.' You are the one who wields hate and negativity, with your polarising stance that any form of criticism is hateful and that there is no reason to strive for honesty or the creation of good work. You denigrate the opinion of those people who disagree with you not because of the content of their opinion, but simply because you've been hurt by having someone dislike something you produced, and you do it through the concern-troll behaviour of wringing your hands and acting - both of you - like the moral guardians for this forum.

You're not. You're evidently not even relatively moral people - you're just people like the rest of us, and your opinion that a rating system designed to assist people in finding quality arcs deserves to have its content fouled up based purely on some arbitary attitude of treating some authors nicely but not others (note that I and Venture are also authors, but somehow we aren't permitted the same lambkin style approach), because there are other problems with the system. This seems insensible and even childishly justifying misdeeds to me - after all, if someone out there steals a watch, it's okay for me to steal a watch, too, no?

You don't want quality writing. You don't want people to write better. You are both intent on this idea, and rather than provide useful ideas for ways to fix this like, say, turning off the rating system for some arcs or end-users, or finding other ways to incentivize what you see as 'niceness,' or, just off the top of my head, leading by example and providing actual meaningful content that fits in your stated perspective of sacrificing quality for niceness, you demonise and belittle those people who disagree with you.

The irony is not lost here - I know full well my manner in this commentary is scorching, but I'm not making empty, puffed comments about 'niceness' and 'pliability,' and I have actually strived to make sure that the arcs I deal with and the authors I deal with have the tools and the utility to improve their work. The main thing that's discouraged me from doing things is not nawsty critics, but rather bad authors, who ask for my opinion, then wholesale reject the time, effort, and analysis I put into their work.

So, I have to ask you: What useful thing have you done? What actual contribution have you made that had thought behind it beyond 'I think I'd like this person?' Because all told, you are making this forum sick, a place where reasoned criticism is lumped in with trolling, and where the mere idea of using one's mind to consider better ways to do things is considered anethematic in an environment already saturated with such a solid resentment of critical analysis.

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

You should note that I repeatedly said there's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, and never did I claim to be more 'moral' than anyone else. My stance is, and will remain, that this is a social game, and if you can't be bothered to be polite or constructive, then you're contributing to a toxic environment for what is supposed to be entertainment. Writers put themselves in a vulnerable position already in this game - tearing into them with acid and bile instead of constructively trying to help them does nothing to help the architect in any sense of the word. All it does is perpetuate a cycle of bitterness and cynicism. Am I upset with hollow, blatantly wrong, or destructive criticism? Absolutely. Insinutating I am hurt from a negative opinion though, is laughable. I recieve -constructive- negative criticism about my arcs all the time. I have even sent rather large thank-you notes and in-game messages to those people. The difference between constructive and destructive attitudes is the real key.

You're right about me not wanting 'quality' writing. What I want is 'fun' writing. Did I enjoy myself? Was the arc amusing? Did it have a neat moment or hold my interest? Well then, mission accomplished, because if you're not having fun, why would you continueto play the game? I'm willing to overlook a lot if something is enjoyable. Why? Because isn't that why we're here in the first place playing? To enjoy ourselves?

Finally: What useful thing have I done? I played a few arcs today, sent positive feedback to them, gave them a bunch of stars, and brightened up their day. Made them feel appreciated for daring to put their work out there on the off chance maybe someone else will see it and try it, and have a good time. Maybe even bumped their arc up from doing it so that others might see it too. To me, that's an infinitely more productive use for my time than gnashing my teeth and trying to bend stories, or the AE itself, to my whims.

'how witlessly expressed' charming as ever, Talen. You have hurled invective at me far more than I have at you, if you want to go there.

At the end of the day, your opinion, your ratings, AND my opinion and ratings have a miniscule effect on the AE system. Bang your chest all you like, you are as important or unimportant as i am.

And here's my response to the phrase 'critical analysis': Thhrrrrrrppp!!!



Eco

ps re: treating you and Venture with the same kindness as my mystery beneficiary: i'll give your arcs a go happily; if they're fun i'll do my best to not let my opinion of you affect my rating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow [The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."

Mr Captain Man's plan sounds ludicrous.

But it's not.

14% of the almost-38,000 published-and-rated arcs* in the system are 5-stars. That's over 5,000 arcs. To get this rating, an arc must have 4.5 stars on average. Otherwise, the arc might fall into the 4-star category, which currently has 56% (yes, MORE THAN HALF) of the published-and-rated arcs.

If someone considers rating during a search, they'll gravitate to the 5-star arcs. They're listed first, usually with many pages of such arcs unless the search is very specific about something else. 5-star arcs get played at random. I cannot prove it, but data mining might. But it appears true, having watched many arcs progress over a few months.

Adding one more 5-star rating without "good reason" (and that is nowhere defined) gives the architect a tiny leg-up in this game. They can weather a 4-star vote, and still be 5-star.

On the other hand, rating an arc 3-stars, even for "good reason" (again, nowhere defined) sets the architect back - they need THREE 5-star ratings to get back to the 4.5 average. 2-stars and 1-star set you back FIVE and SEVEN 5-stars, respectively.

So using an average calculation gives all power to the griefers. NOTE: A MEDIAN CALCULATION OF RATING WOULD MEAN EVERY VOTE IS CONSIDERED EQUAL (and might balance out the overflowing 4-star bucket). Meanwhile, Mr Captain Man would do no harm voting with "no good reason" as a 5 does little to change an arc's rating. Compared to someone 1-starring an arc because it clashes with their personal choice. It's enough to give a nasty reviewer a god complex.

And I am not saying MCM has "no good reason". Just, "what if".

* I am not including the 15,000-odd unrated arcs in this analysis.

Arc: 379017: Outbroken See all your old friends in the Outbreak Tutorial sequel!
Arc: Coming Soon: The Incarnate Shadow Shard of Fire and Ice Mender Rednem needs you!
Massively.com opinion poll: Please Help Save CoH!

"Nasty reviewers" 1-starring arcs are an anomaly. Most people's standards just aren't that high; how many time have you seen the phrase "three stars is paper mission quality"? People randomly 1-starring arcs to push them off the first few pages though....people can give the "maybe your arc isn't that good" speech all they want, you will never convince me that there aren't a bunch of vindictive jerks out there seeking to ruin someone's day.

So we end up with the majority of 5-starred arcs being either invalid, or having very few votes, having been 5-starred by the author's friends and sitting down on the tenth page or so, where the griefers can't be bothered to look. Down in the 5-star ghetto we have misspelled titles, thinly disguised farms, "extreme minions, extreme lieutenants, extreme bosses," "stop darkity dark lord of darkness from destroying the world," and all kinds of other such drivel.

Thank you guys, for brightening my day. Thank you for giving me even more incentive to disregard 5-star arcs entirely, and stick to the 4-star "ghetto." And to everyone who is currently sitting at 5 stars, I probably won't be playing your arc, until some griefer knocks you down to 4 stars.

Excellent analysis air.

I've always thought of the rating system as a popularity marker, not a sign of quality. Even some of the dev choices don't match up to some quality arcs I've played. The devs picked some that specifically promoted the AE system, so they're more self-serving than genuine artistic approval.

I've stopped voting altogether unless I really love the arc.

I guessing you haven't be keeping up with the other MA sub forum. Lots of hard data has shown it's not doing jack to filter quality, what with over half the arcs rated 4 stars. It's actually old news. Go have a read, some people put a lot of time into number crunching.

<QR>

People can say whatever they want about being "nice" or whatever. While I agree that getting a 5-star rating and the 25 tickets bonus is nice, ultimately I'd be far more pleased with a 4-star review from a harsh critic such as Venture than a 5-star review from a "softie."

Absolutely - I think there are lots of problems with the 'culture of Venture,' but it's really not meaningful to complain about here. This thread is about people who think the best alternative to mean critics is to provide excessive praise, right?

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

I'd just like to state, the argument going on in this thread is a pretty good example of why I've mostly kept my mouth shut in regards to people's review style.

It amazes me that people can take a thread about not taking a game so darn seriously, being generous with your ratings while still providing constructive criticism (just changing your tone and demeanur about how you present yourself), and using the broken and meaningless ratings system to help players through it instead of dump on them, and still bloat and distort it to the absolute most extreme possible interpretation of the idea (yes, yes, I know, it's the internet and only the extreme interpretation is the one ever considered) in order to get offended or snarky about it.

P1 - "People could stand to be kinder to each other"
P2 - "I find that notion patently offensive! Sass and snark engaged good sir!"

Bleh, I give up.

Haven't actually read the Bible, have ya?

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect